Energion Direct

Blog

  • Modern Socialism and the Bible

    by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

     
    [ene_ptp]A common defense that modern supporters of socialism use is to claim that it is the model practiced by the early church in the book of Act, and thus it is the model we should seek to follow.   Acts 4:32 states,
    Now all the believers were one in heart and soul, and nobody called any of his possessions his own. Instead, they shared everything they owned. (ISV)
    While at first blush socialism seem to be a reasonable inference of this passage, there are a few problems with this view. First off, there is the question of whether this passage is prescriptive or descriptive. Is this something we are commanded to follow, or is this just describing what they did? That it is descriptive is supported by the fact that this certainly did not last very long, and we do not see other churches being told to follow this practice.
    Nor does it seem to have worked out very well, for what we do see is other churches being asked to contribute funds to support the church in Jerusalem.  It should be noted here that had sharing everything in common been a universal teaching of the early church, there would have been no need to make the plea for support. Also Paul makes it clear that “each of you should set aside and save something from your surplus” (1 Cor 16:2) showing that funds were not held in common.
    So it would seem that the socialism of the early church in Jerusalem was not a universal teaching, and did not end up very well. Nor is it really hard to see why.   Acts 4:34 goes on to describe that,
    none of them needed anything, because everyone who had land or houses would sell them and bring the money received for the things sold
    This is all well and good, but accumulating the money needed to buy land or a house takes considerable time. Selling such an assets can generate a lot of money, such that it is not surprising that at first “none of them needed anything.” But as is pretty clear to most, it is easier and takes less time to spend money than earn it. If the people were earning enough money to keep up with the need there would have been no reason to sell property in the first place.
    Since they did sell it, it means the need exceeded their incomes. Selling the property, and the resulting inflow of cash, fixed the short term issue, but it did not address the long term one, and thus it was only a matter of time until the money ran out again.   Yet this time, the property was already sold. With nothing else to sell, now they were all in poverty, and thus the appeals to the other churches for support. This is an inherent problem of socialism. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” It can produce short term gain by tapping into accumulated wealth but the gains are short lived.   In the end, as Winston Churchill pointed out, “The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
    But even if one takes the early Jerusalem Church as a model to follow, there is still a very big and significant difference between the socialism of the early church in Jerusalem, and modern socialism. While the socialism of the early Jerusalem church “shared everything” the sharing was voluntary. This can be seen in Acts 5 and the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira. While they also sold some of their property and gave the money to the church, they secretly held back some of the money they received. The key point here is that they were not punished for holding back some of the money, but for lying about it. Note Peter’s response in Acts 5:3-4,
    “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back some of the money you got for the land? As long as it remained unsold, wasn’t it your own? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? So how could you have thought of doing what you did? You didn’t lie only to men, but also to God!”
     According to Peter, Ananias and Sapphira owned this property and could do with it as they saw fit. There was no obligation to give this money to the apostles. Their sin was to lie and say they gave all when they did not.
    Peter’s words are words the modern socialist cannot say. While those in the Jerusalem church would say, ‘what is mine is yours’, the modern socialist says ‘what is yours, is mine.’ The former is a statement of generosity, the latter is coveting. It may be disguised as concern for some need, but at its core it is seeing what someone else has, and wanting it for their own purposes.
    It is important to note that in the 10th commandment, there is no exception clause. It does not say do not covet unless you have a good reason. Where Peter could say “wasn’t it your own” the modern socialist say “give it to us or else.” The later just does not strike me as a very Christian message.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]

  • Best-Selling Book of All Time

    by Nancy Petrey

     
    [ene_ptp]The Bible is the best-selling book of all time. But it is rare in some parts of the world where it is such a coveted possession that people will risk their lives to have one. In China, believers often share one copy of the Bible. Each person receives a page, and when they have memorized it, they get back together to exchange their portion of the Bible. (http://www.watersourceministries.com/bible-smuggling/) Many Christians in this country have several copies of the Bible, and yet few even read it, much less take it to heart.
    I love the Bible. It has been the guide for my life ever since I received Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord. I have not understood it perfectly, but the Holy Spirit has been given to me to teach me, as Jesus promised. Seeming contradictions have sometimes cleared up, but even when parts of Scripture are puzzling, I trust that it is still God’s Word, and I will eventually understand it either here or when I see Him face to face.
    The assault on the authority of the Bible is troubling to me, because without this “anchor” for the soul, we will drift into dangerous waters and be destroyed. Jesus’ words are a gracious invitation from a gentle Shepherd to follow His way and His words: “Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you will find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30). And the Apostle John instructs his “little children” thus: “For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome” (I John 5:3). Remember that Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
    Many Christians declare that we are not under the law, we are under grace. But God has made a way for us to keep His commandments: “… the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the SPIRIT” (Rom. 8:4). Remember that Jesus said He didn’t come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. Heaven and earth will pass away, but one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18).
    How important is the WRITTEN Word of God? When Jesus was tempted by the devil in the wilderness, he said, “It is WRITTEN, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4; Luke 4:4). Jesus was quoting from the law in the Old Testament—Deuteronomy 8:3. To apply these words of Jesus to the current debate about legalizing sodomy is irrefutable —“It is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). To God it is so serious, it incurred the death penalty, as did any form of sexual sin!
    Before I myself get stoned, I will point out that Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, a sin punishable by stoning, that He did not condemn her! But He ALSO SAID, “Go and sin no more.” Jesus didn’t make light of her sin, but He forgave her. He knew He would soon be dying a tortuous death on the cross so that He could be her sin substitute and take the death penalty for her. “God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). That is the GOOD NEWS He has commissioned all Christians to go and tell! But if a person will not admit what he is doing is sin and ask for forgiveness, how can he be pardoned? He can’t.
    One last point. The history of how we have the Bible today is a story filled with great sacrifice and death. For instance, John Wycliffe opposed the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. He translated the Latin Vulgate into English in the 1380s. The Pope was infuriated, and 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug up, crushed, and scattered in the river! John Hus, one of Wycliffe’s followers, was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire! His last words were a prophecy that God would raise up a man in 100 years “whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” It happened when Martin Luther in 1517 nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention against the Roman Catholic Church on the church door. Luther translated the Bible into German.
    William Tyndale translated the Bible into English “illegally,” while he was in hiding. He was arrested, tried, and convicted, then strangled and burned at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.” This prayer was answered three years later when King Henry VIII published the English “Great Bible” in 1539.
    In order to shorten this lengthy post, I will quote what I found online as a good answer to the question, “Is the Bible still the best-selling book in the world?” The best answer on www.answers.yahoo.com is: “Still the best-selling book of all time…. People are literally dying for it. People in countries where the book is banned, where getting one in, or taking one in, could get you killed, and people are literally risking life to get them the book anyways. Funny, I don’t see anyone willing to die for a lie. The faith flourishes where persecuted, so by all means, let the atheist taunt and jeer, it helps get rid of the chaff.”

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2727′]

    For more information on Nancy Petrey or her books click on a picture or book cover.

     

  • The Danger of Not Reading Scripture Literally

    by Joel Watts

     
    [ene_ptp]Growing up, we were told to read Scripture via the plain sense model. The words on the page contained no mystery and were to be received exactly as we understood them. There was limited allegory (usually one instance, Galatians 4.24), but otherwise, things we didn’t understand (Revelation) became “prophecy.”
    You understand what I mean. We were “literalists.”
    As I transitioned from fear to faith, I went too far. I insisted on getting to the absolute mystery of Scripture via the ad fontes! approach. Again, I was a literalist, where I would look for the original meaning of the word.
    The truth of the matter is that the proper reading of Scripture lies in the middle. St Matthew, in his Gospel, destroys the plain sense reading and doesn’t much help the allegorists. The blessed writer of the Epistle of the Hebrews does the same thing. Their modes of revelation always reach to original intent — but the intent as revealed in Christ through the Holy Spirit.
    But this post isn’t really about reading Scripture properly — methodologically, speaking. Rather, I want to address, briefly, the need to take Scripture with a measure of plain sense reading.
    Why?
    In reading the Gospel of Mark, I firmly believe that many of the miracles are meant to be a hidden transcript against the rulers of the age (both the Roman and Jewish governing hierarchies). However, the plain sense reading of these passages reveal something else. The Gospel of Mark has many present-tense verbs, and I am of the opinion that this is more than a stylistic choice of the author, but is every bit part of the Gospel’s agenda. Jesus’s work is never past tense. Jesus’s words are never simply said.
    Rather, the Gospel of Mark has the singular goal to remind the readers that Jesus still is…still is healing the sick, still is casting out demons (either political or spiritual), and still is speaking. Jesus is still speaking to the oppressed, still loving the unloved, and still calling to the hurt, to give them hope.
    Why is this important?
    Simply because, no matter the hidden transcripts, the allegories, or the parables involved, the original authors and their disciples believed Jesus was in fact a miracle worker, a healer, a compassionate friend, and the Son of God. That’s why the stories exploded — because Jesus, for them, was very much a real and present Person. They didn’t wait for Him to return, but knew that He was very much in their presence, healing and exorcising and loving.
    If we focus on making the Gospels into a parable and thus allegorize (and demythologize) the words about Jesus, or if we read the Gospels as a historical account, we are going to make a grave error. One removes the power of Jesus, pretending it is some pre-modernist babble and folklore. The other removes the very presence of Jesus in the life of the Christian today — a presence that goes beyond a conscience or some sort of ethical guide, but a presence that is ever power and ever working.
    We need to read Scripture as if those stories hold mystery, history, allegory, and fact in tandem. Otherwise, we will soon begin to ignore the power of Jesus to be present in our lives. We will miss the power of Jesus to heal our hearts, to heal our sicknesses, and the cast demons out of our paths — however we may interpret that.
    Finally, when you read Scripture, do so as St Matthew did, as St. Paul did, and as others have — always through Christ and always pointing to the present reality by aid of the Holy Spirit.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2687′]

  • Science and My faith

    by Herold Weiss

     
    The most striking scientific advances of the last few years have been in the field of genetics. Biology has made great[ene_ptp] strides since Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus of the atom in 1909 and Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the double helix in 1953. Among them is the realization that the nucleus of the atom is essentially a void. This basic modification of our understanding of material reality, however, does not demonstrate that science is not to be trusted. It only demonstrates one of the basic characteristics of science. Every scientific declaration is subject to modifications by new discoveries. No scientific demonstration is the last word. All scientific theses only serve to formulate predictions concerning areas in which knowledge is less secure. A scientific thesis serves to design experiments with which to test the validity of a particular prediction. In other words, the validity of a scientific thesis is demonstrated by its capacity to incite the imagination of scientists who design experiments that further reveal the way in which the universe in which we live actually works. Both Newton’s law of gravity and Einstein’s law of relativity are in a constant process of refinement as new evidence comes in from more recent research. These refinements in no way prove these laws invalid or wrong. The recent discovery of gravitational waves has proved Einstein’s prediction of their existence on account of his refinement of Newton’s explanation of gravity. Einstein viewed gravity as a curvature in spacetime. The scientific confirmation of gravitational waves proves Einstein right and now sparks the desire to understand the astronomical events that produced them. In this way new scientific discoveries serve to validate Newton’s and Einstein’s scientific work. On the other hand, if someone proposes an explanation of material reality which cannot be affirmed or refuted by scientific experiments, she/he is not a scientist. Science can only offer explanations of reality which can be confirmed or denied by scientifically controlled experiments or critically reviewed evidence.
    The science of genetics has identified the language of the genomes. In 2006 a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, under the leadership of David Haussler, published the results of a detailed comparison of the genomes of different species. These researchers found two conglomerates of DNA that have remained stable throughout many transmutations in genomes of vertebrates. They designated one HAR1 (Human Accelerated Region 1). This genome is found in chickens, mice, rats, chimpanzees and, highly modified, in humans. During 300 million years, this genome did not suffer modification since the common predecessor of chickens and mice until the common predecessor of chimpanzees and humans. Then, during the following 6 million years, it underwent significant modifications in the common predecessor of chimpanzees and humans. During these 6 million years HAR1 in humans went through 18 modifications. Also discovered was that HAR1 is very active in the cerebral cortex of the fetus during the second trimester of gestation. This is the time when the essential structure of the brain is established.
    The second genome of DNA was designated by the Santa Cruz researchers as HAR2. It is active in the development of the wrist in the human fetus. These discoveries, which some consider to be as important as those of Rutherford, Crick and Watson, are very important not only because they open a new area of study, human biology at the molecular level, but also because they deal with the brain and the wrist, the two organs that more discretely differentiate humans from all vertebrates.
    No doubt, science will continue to advance as it discloses the way in which nature works. The new technology of computers has revolutionized methods of research, as the Santa Cruz team has amply demonstrated. There are Christians who see these advances as follies of human hubris or as attacks on Christian faith. These reactions, however, are based on basic misunderstandings.
    Those who dismiss such scientific discoveries as pronouncements of science “so called” claim that true science concerning the formation of nature is to be found in the text of the first three chapters of the Bible. To assign scientific legitimacy to the Bible is at best anachronistic, and at worst illusionary and ignorant. Science as knowledge attained by the application of specific methods of research that are subject to peer review became part of our culture rather recently. The reconstruction of the past by the critical evaluation of the extant ancient sources and an explicit demonstration why some may be taken seriously and others may not is also a recent development in the writing of history. To claim that biblical authors wrote science or history is to do violence to the Bible. To pretend that the Bible contains science and history of a quality superior to that written by “mere” human beings is doubly wrong. It is wrong because in the Bible there is neither science nor history in the academic sense in which these words are used today. Besides, it is an error because the Bible gives ample evidence that it was written by “mere” human beings who were the children of their times.
    Those who see science as a threat to Christian faith misunderstand both science and faith. I agree with those who understand that science and faith operate in different realms, deal with different objects and do not affirm the same kind of truths. As noted above, scientific truths are characterized by their ability to be modified by new research. No scientist can defend as irrevocable what he was taught in school. Anyone who rejects the critical results of well-designed experiments or historical research ceases to be a scientist or a historian. The believer who has faith in God also constantly searches for better ways to understand the God in whom he/she has faith. Believers who get attached to what they believed as children become immature believers. The faith of a child and the faith of an adult is the same faith. The faith of Abraham and my faith, I am convinced, is the same confidence of living by the grace and the mercy of God. But my way of understanding God and God’s will are not the same as those of Abraham because his culture and mine are quite different. It is also true that my way of understanding God and God’s will now that I am an eighty one year old man living in Michigan is not the same as my understanding of those things when I was a child in Montevideo, Uruguay. In reference to the difference between Abraham’s and my understandings of God and of God’s will, I have the advantage of the revelation of God made available to all human beings by Jesus Christ. On the other hand, I repeat, the faith of Abraham and my faith as a child or as an eighty one year old is absolutely the same, unchanged, undisturbed by different understandings of God and God’s will. Faith is not connected to changes in cultures and historical and scientific constructions of reality in the way in which conceptions of God and of God’s will are. Historical or scientific “truths,” which are temporal and contingent, cannot threaten faith in God, even while they may require that adjustments be made to the way in which God and God’s will are understood.
    The reason I have no problem in taking into account what scientists tell me concerning how life has evolved on the universe is not because I have put my faith in science rather than in God. It is because my study of the Bible has convinced me that it is not concerned with providing academic science or history. When the Bible refers to historical or natural events the information is marginal, tangential and inconsequential. If academic scientists and historians today find some of this information to be correct, according to our present understanding of things, it does nothing to prove that the Bible has supernatural information. It only proves that the ancients had excellent powers of observation. To the contrary, when scientists today find that the way things are described in the Bible are proven wrong by our more refined means of observation, it does not prove that God has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible’s agenda is to testify to God’s involvement in human affairs, to give testimony to God’s power, justice, fidelity and love. Many of the things that it tells about are not correct and many are not edifying. All its content, however, reflects the way in which a people saw themselves to be guided, protected and punished by God. It is a witness to the faith of these people, and as such it is worthy of emulation. A believer who vetoes the advances of science and history to defend the accuracy of a biblical text is taking leave of his reasoning powers. People of faith express their faith with the concepts available and reasonable to them. Faith does not turn a believer unreasonable. Faith surely goes beyond what can be established on historical or scientific grounds, but faith never vetoes what is reasonable. Faith is a power that integrates the personality harmonizing all the facets of what it means to be human, and being human is not limited to what can be investigated by scientific methods. When faith stands against reason it becomes a distorter rather than a harmonizer of the person. Religion can be either an agent of well-being or an agent of physical and psychological malfunctions. A faith that makes a person unreasonable reflects a religion that destroys the personality.
    Consideration of different ways of understanding anything is an activity of the mind under the power of reason as well as the influence of experience and accumulated intuition. This means that understandings change. I have traced the changes in my understanding of God’s will in Finding My Way in Christianity: Recollections of a Journey. Similar exercises are sometimes described as “how my mind has changed, or has remained the same,” or “Why I changed my mind,” as is the case of the series in this blog. Faith, on the other hand is lodged, as the apostle Paul points out (Rom 8: 8 – 10, 27; 1 Cor. 4:5), in the heart, the core of being. As the activity of the heart, faith is the anchor of life in God. As such, it transcends reason and intuition. Faith grasps the very being of God as Faithful. The truth of God is not to be found in the realm of knowledge, but in the realm of being. I shall never place my faith in either science or history. Their truths are temporary and contingent on limited sources. The same is true, it must be said, of doctrines formulated to account for God and God’s will. My faith is set on the truth of God. God is who accounts for the reason of my being at all. Of my faith I cannot give explanations; I can only confess it. In the meantime I am happy to have science and history give me timely information about the past and the way in which life and what exists in time and space function in the universe that God is constantly creating. With science I have a great debt of gratitude. On account of its many recent discoveries I am enjoying my old age with good health and comfort.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2675′]

    For more information on Herold Weiss’s books, click on a book cover.

  • Inspiration of Scripture: Meaning What?

    Inspiration of Scripture: Meaning What?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    l. Theory and Fact

    The incentive for constructing theories of inspiration is to provide a basis for asserting the authority of the Bible. The Bible, so the argument goes, has authority because it is inspired, and it is inspired in the way the theory of inspiration accounts for it. Since we know how the scriptural books came into being and how they became part of the canon, we simply have to reject any theories which do not take this process into account, or which do not take it sufficiently into account.1 The question how in fact a scriptural writing was produced is decisive: ‘the real question is whether in fact such a writing was ever produced to form part of the Bible as we know it today. It is by this criterion, and not by its inner logic or consistency, that the relevance of the scholastic theology of inspiration must be judged.’2

    The question how in fact a scriptural writing was produced is decisive. It is the criterion by which we must judge not only a scholastic theology of inspiration but any theology of inspiration. What is at issue is the relevance of any theology of inspiration. In view of what we now know concerning how the book came to its final form, we ask how a theory of inspiration can be helpful and what it is that it explains. We must keep the demands of what we know about the actual production of the literature always before our minds. We go seriously wrong if we do not constantly keep in mind what happened in the long story of the composition, compilation and acceptance of the Bible.

    A theory of inspiration may make claims that are easily shown to be false by carefully examining the facts. It will either ignore or explain away the facts. Any satisfactory doctrine of inspiration will take account of these data, and be compatible with them. It will take notice of the history of the Bible, and its great complexity. It will not take as an a priori principle that the Bible is inspired, and then proceed to build on it, saying something like, ‘The Bible is inspired, therefore . . . .’ and then proceed to fill in the claim, e.g. there were certain ways in which it could not have been written. The last time I confronted the argument it went: ‘The Bible was inspired, therefore its writers could not have borrowed or copied from other sources in any shape or form.’
    Rather one first asks: What, according to the evidence which is available, are the stages and the processes which took place before the end-product resulted? If you ask this historical question, you will have to keep an open mind. It is not fitting, nor is it honest (even if one is sincere) to say, ‘Scripture is inspired: therefore such-and-such did not happen.’ We must seriously take account of the historical data. We may not overlook any significant facts in building a doctrine of Scripture.

    2. Some Well-established Facts about Scripture

    Here, then, is a short list of some well-established facts about the Scriptures. They represent the dedicated efforts of competent and devoted scholars over several centuries:

    1. There is an enormous range of styles in the Scriptures. Some is literature of the very highest rank. Other is ungrammatical.
    2. There are literary relationships between some of the scriptural writings. That means that the similarities are so close that they come from common literary, i.e. written, sources. Simply, the writer copied from other people.
    3. Oral traditions lie behind our written documents.
    4. The traditions were reworked, often several times, before the product resulted as we now have it. The process of redaction was complex.
    5. It was a common practice for ancient authors to use pseudonyms. They hoped to give distinction to their work by connecting it with well-known figures.
    6. It is at times impossible to harmonize some biblical narratives with others.
    7. Each piece of writing has come from a quite particular historical setting. In the majority of cases we can reconstruct that particular setting and relate the writing to the setting.
    8. Often, e.g. in Genesis, Kings, Deuteronomy, several oral traditions were set side by side.

    3. How the Books were Put Together

    The following is a very brief and simplified summary of the series of events that went into the making of a book.

    ‘Literary studies lead to the conclusion that the process of composition of a typical Old Testament book was as follows: a. groups of unknown people composed oral form to help them with their work, their worship, their teaching; b. the oral forms were passed on through the generations, undergoing small changes from time to time; c. local men of letters wrote down the oral forms with which they were familiar; d. in some period of great literary activity, an editor collected these various literary products and combined them into one large work; e. the large work might be combined with others to make up a complete roll.’3

    Any doctrine of inspiration must reckon with these facts, take into account this complex process by which the books came into being and the manner in which they came to have a special recognition in the church.

    4. Norms for a Doctrine of Scripture

    Even if we do not wish to enter into discussion of a particular viewpoint because we do not consider it an issue, it is sometimes worth­while to say why it is acceptable or unacceptable. ‘Inerrancy’ is the term used to refer to the view which holds that the Bible is without error, that it must be interpreted in such a way that one may claim that it contains no kind of error. ‘Verbal inspiration’ is the theory which says that the words of the writing have their origin in the divine initiative. ‘Dictation’ is the theory that God ‘spoke’ the actual words of the biblical writer, who duly set them down. Hence, the words of Scripture are the words of God. Dictation theory is not always, but very often, called upon as support for a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy.
    We shall now simply list reasons why a verbal, i.e. dictation, theory of inspiration is in error.

    1. The ‘writers’ do not claim to be inspired in this way.
    2. Only the originals would be so inspired. We don’t have them. Translations are of secondary value.
    3. It says nothing about the function of the books. Suppose they had been inspired in this way and left in a box and not yet discovered?
    4. Dictation theory is a caricature of the actual process of composition and transmission, which is quite varied indeed. It was ‘in many and varied ways’ that ‘God spoke’ [Hebrews 1:1]. Luke was not dictated to. Mark and other sources were copied by other scriptural writers.
    5. It makes the writers into puppets. The theory of accommoda­tion is an obvious enough rationalization.
    6. Evidence from the writings themselves contradicts a verbal inspiration theory.
    7. It misconceives the idea of authority.
    8. Even if it were true it would not establish the authority of Scripture. It only tells us how the words got on to the page.
    9. The writings are not without error.
    10. It fails to consider the historical evidence and in doing so distorts basic definitions, for example, ‘writer,’ ‘author.’
    11. It does not do justice to the diversity of the biblical materials.

    The question which raises a worthwhile issue is this: Can a duly modified theory of inspiration take account of the facts, some of which we have just mentioned? That is to say, Can a concept of ‘inspiration’ serve as a theological idea which can provide an adequate explanation of those convictions the Christian wishes to express about the Bible? Rejecting a theory of verbal inspiration, where dictation is the means, can we defend a modified theory of inspiration and account for the Christian attitude to and use of the Bible?

    We can certainly set out check points for any such doctrine. By referring to the objections made above to a dictation theory of inspiration, we can derive some norms for an adequate doctrine of Scripture. Any adequate doctrine of the Bible must give a satisfactory account of the following:

    1. What the ‘writers’ themselves claim or do not claim.
    2. The history of the original text, of its transmission and translation.
    3. How the books actually function in the Christian community. How the church uses the writings.
    4. The complex and various ways in which the writings came to be, and in particular,
    5. The creative individuality and contextuality, i.e. the humanity, of the writers.
    6. Evidence from the writings concerning the origin of par­ticular oracles, ideas and pronouncements.
    7. That the authority of the Bible is religious and relational.
    8. That the words of Scripture come to have such authority. This involves an extended process of recognition or canonization.
    9. That the writings are not inerrant.
    10. The history of the composition and compilation of the books.
    11. The great diversity of the biblical materials: including style, culture, religious and ethical views, form, and aim.

    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________________________________

    1Cf. Leo XIII (Nov. 18th. 1893).

    2Bruce Vawter, Biblical Inspiration. London: Hutchinson, 1972 3.1, p. 75.

    3David Stacey, Interpreting the Bible, London, Sheldon Press, 1976. pp. 44-45.

  • Why Did Jesus Speak in Parables?

    by Drew Smith

     
    Reframing coverThose of us who have read the Gospels, or who are even remotely familiar with the teachings of Jesus, know that he often spoke in parables. Indeed, Jesus tells over 40 parables, some which are very familiar even among many non-Christians.
    But why did Jesus speak in parables? This is the question that his closest followers asked him, trying to get a sense of the meaning and purpose of Jesus’ parables, and it is a question that many of us have when looking back at Jesus’ life and ministry. Indeed, when considering the importance Jesus seems to place on his authority as the teacher of God’s will, one wonders why he talked in stories that are riddles that are hard to understand and interpret.
    Would it not have been easier, and much clearer to his audience, and certainly to us living two millennium in the future, if Jesus would have been more forthright and straightforward in his speech, offering to his listeners lists of commands that are not difficult to comprehend?
    Could Jesus have not done a better job of teaching his followers exactly what he wanted them to learn if he had not been so mysterious by using parables? For sure, Jesus is clear at times (?), but when he communicates in parables, his meaning is very often unclear.[ene_ptp]
    It is true that there is a sense that Jesus understood his own surroundings and his own culture and people, who lived in an agrarian Palestine, and who understood the cultural norms of the society in which they lived from day to day. The parables, then, were connections to the hearers through relevant allegory. Thus, the parables Jesus tells utilize images and ideas his contemporaries would have understood, and if we look at the parables, we quickly see how earthy many of them are.
    So, in a real sense, Jesus was using everyday images and practices to speak about deeper theological and ethical issues. Some have said Jesus did this to make these ideas easier for his listeners to understand.
    But is this correct?
    Yes, Jesus does use everyday images and practices in the stories he tells, but his parables do not necessarily make theological and ethical issues easier to understand. In fact, several of Jesus’ parables are confusing.  For example, the one he tells in Mark 4 about the sower who goes out to sow seed is very confusing.
    Who is the sower? What is the seed? What do the different types of soil mean, if anything? Sure, Jesus explains his parable to the disciples, the only time he ever explains one of his parables, but even his explanation is confusing. We still do not know what the meaning of the parable is. Is it a call for us to be better soil so that we can receive the seed that will grow? If this is so, do we have any control over this? Can soil actually change its own capacity to be more or less fruitful?
    But in an interesting answer to the disciples’ question about the meaning of the parables, Jesus seems to imply, or perhaps is very straightforward as to why he speaks in parables. He says in Mark 4:11-12,
    “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that
    ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive,
    and may indeed listen, but not understand;
    so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’”
    In his allusion to Isaiah 6:9, Jesus is clearly stating that his parables are difficult to understand, and they are intended to be difficult to understand. Although he uses images and practices that the people of first century Palestine would have understood, the use of these familiar images does not translate into his audience actually understanding what he is saying.
    So, again, why did Jesus use these parables, which he himself admits are difficult to understand?
    Perhaps the answer as to why Jesus used these stories is that he himself was struggling to understand the mystery of God in the world. And, if it is true that Jesus was himself struggling to understand God’s purposes in the world, and was therefore struggling to make his understanding known to those around him who came to hear what he had to say about God, then we might say that the parables connect us with Jesus’ own imagination as he thought about God and God’s rule in the world.
    If this is plausible, then the parables are not declarations of fixed truths, but are rather journeys of the mind that Jesus invites us to take both as a community of faith, but also as individual pilgrims seeking God. These journeys of the mind, and indeed of the heart, are never ending quests for God. Perhaps this is why the parables have many various meanings, and why they, for the most part, are open-ended and ambiguous.
    And this also may be why Jesus tells his disciples that he speaks in parables so that those who hear might think they understand, but they do not. He wants his hearers to struggle with the images and the actions within a parable, not to find an easy answer so that they can go on their way. No, Jesus’ use of the parable is to invite those willing to invest in the struggle to take the journey with him, and to struggle to seek God.
    But, in their elusiveness, Jesus’ parables describe the kingdom of God itself as elusive. If the parables about the kingdom are difficult to comprehend, how much more so is the kingdom difficult to comprehend?
    Just when we might think we have it all figured out, we are confronted with a new understanding of the kingdom of God that we never expected. This is why Jesus commands us to “Seek first the kingdom of God.” This is no one-time seeking as if searching for an object we can see and touch, and once we find it we can stop seeking.  No, seeking the kingdom of God is a continual seeking, an eternal searching for God’s kingdom that cannot be measured or adequately described by human language.
    So, Jesus uses parables to speak about the kingdom of God because these stories lend themselves to open-ended elusiveness that lead us to more seeking, more searching, and more questioning. And, because these stories lead us to further seeking, searching, and questioning, they draw us slowly out of our lives of safety, security, and comfort, to imagine the reality of God.
    The parables lead us from the world we know, where we feel safe and comfortable, to imagine a world we do not know, one in which God’s kingdom has come and God’s will is done, just as Jesus taught his followers to pray.
    Jesus tells parables to draw his listeners into the stories, not as observers, but as participants. We are meant to find ourselves in these stories as part of our journey to discover who we are in light of God’s rule and how we respond to that rule.
    In this sense, Jesus’ parables invite us to imagine a God beyond our descriptions and our qualifications, to contemplate our own lives in God’s rule, and to imagine a world different from our own. And, if we are willing to participate in the journey of the parables, wrestling with hearing and understanding, we may experience more deeply the God about whom Jesus spoke through these little stories called parables.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2613′]

    For more information, click one of the pictures in the slideshow.

     

  • Couples Should Talk about Religion

    by Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle

     
    [ene_ptp]I recently wrote a book entitled A HOME UNITED ( Energion, 2015) in which I contend that, among the many important topics for conversation and communication for couples, the topic of religion is one that should not be ignored. I also make the observation that it often is because many people deem it to be so divisive and controversial that it could create discomfort within the relationship. Sadly, when one looks at how religion has all too often been understood and used, one can certainly see how people would not want it to be an impediment in a relationship that has the potential to be lasting.
    While I understand the hesitancy involved in creating obstacles and ruining what is and could be a very good thing, I would also contend that there are MANY good reasons, even necessary reasons, to put the topic of religion on the table. It belongs among the many important topics couples discuss as their love unfolds and they explore the possibility of sharing life together.
    For your consideration, I list some of the reasons:

    1. Understanding another’s religious values is a way of getting to know the inner life of a person well. As couples reveal themselves to each other, that revelation includes the values they share and what really makes them tick.
    2. In a relationship, each person, while being committed to their partner, remains an individual. Religious conviction is a very important part of many individuals’ lives. To bury that important part of oneself in the name of avoiding discomfort carries with it the potential for a greater discomfort down the road.
    3. If a relationship eventually leads to children, decisions need to be made regarding raising those children religiously. In order to avoid the situation where this becomes a divisive matter for the couple, it helps to put it on the list of important issues to explore as the relationship grows deeper and a child is not imminent.

    I would also add that, in some family situations, members of the couple’s extended family might have such strong opinions on the subject that their attempt to exert influence may be discomforting to the couple. A couple is strengthened in this situation if ongoing, in-depth communication on this issue is part of their relationship.
    My book, A Home United, is written as a resource for couples and those who work with them. For couples, I offer questions and pose scenarios for them to explore. These are intended to help them come to an understanding of religious values in the other and to assist them in making good, conscientious decisions. For those who work in premarital counseling, including those in church premarital programs, this book offers material to help these leaders and counselors move couples in the direction of having important and necessary discussions.
    These comments and the book apply to ALL couples seeking to share a life together, including those in same sex relationships!

     [slideshow_deploy id=’2576′]

    For more about author Robert R. LaRochelle, click on his picture. Click on a book cover to get more information about that book.

  • Credible Christians for a Credible Gospel

    by Allan Bevere

     
    Colossians 1:3-10
    In the opening of their letter to the Colossians, Paul and Timothy offer specific prayers for the church there: [ene_ptp]
    …asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God (1:9-10).
    In ancient Judaism the knowledge of God’s will is known through the Law of Moses (e.g. Rom. 2:17-20; Bar. 3:24-4:4; Sir. 24:23). Such knowledge is to be had through “spiritual wisdom and understanding.”
    According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, wisdom and understanding were two of the three principal intellectual virtues. Unlike what Aristotle called “the moral virtues” which were acquired through education, he believed that the intellectual virtues were given by a combination of nature and nurture, that is, while such virtues could be strengthened through experience and education, it was necessary that a person be given them by “natural endowments” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1143b 8-9; Aristotle will contradict himself on this later in his Ethics).
    Paul and Timothy, however, appear to have a more Jewish understanding in mind.
    Wisdom and understanding are not given by nature, but are received as divine gifts. Thus, the writers can pray and ask God to grant these “virtues” to the Christians at Colossae. Even though such virtues are divinely received, they can also be nurtured as one travels with Christ and his church along the way of discipleship. Paul prays that the Colossians may be “filled with the knowledge of God’s will.” Such filling suggests movement toward a completed or finished state. Spiritual growth is in mind here. So while knowledge revealed through spiritual wisdom and understanding are divinely given, the believer plays an important role in nurturing those gifts.
    Such knowledge “suggests the ability to discern the truth and to make good decisions based on that truth” (Moo, Colossians, p. 94). This knowledge is necessary if the Christians at Colossae are to “bear fruit in every good work.” The imagery of bearing fruit in one’s life is found throughout ancient Jewish literature, particularly in the prophets of the Old Testament (e.g. Isa. 37:31; Jer. 17:8; Ezek. 17:23).
    The authors of Colossians are not interested in divine knowledge for its own sake. Rather, it is to aid the Colossians in their life together as the church. The gospel is credible in and of itself, but it only gains credibility as it is demonstrated by individual saints and the church collectively in the good works that bear witness to God’s kingdom. Christian convictions must be revealed in practice (cf. James 2:18). Being credible and living credibly cannot be separated.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

    Click on the author picture for more information about Allan R. Bevere or on one of the cover images to get more information about his books.

  • Becoming Conscious of Your Essential Beliefs

    [Editor’s Note: This post requires time to mull it over, so we’re reprising it today]

    by Henry Neufeld, Energion Publisher

    Henry picOn the front of a local church, prominently displayed, is a list of the critical doctrines of that congregation. These include KJV 1611, dispensationalism, premillennialism, and pretribulationalism. If I were about to enter the church, I would look at the sign and realize I would not fit in.
    While this list of doctrines is not one that would attract me, I am not writing this to complain about their doctrinal narrowness. They sound to me like they might be a bit narrow, but many churches have long and detailed doctrinal statements, and no warning on their sign or the front of your church. Until you’re sitting in the pew you may not realize that everyone around you is reading only the KJV, or you may learn through stern comments in Sunday School that you have come to a place where the timing of the rapture is settled doctrine, not open to discussion.
    Most of us have some list of doctrines that are absolutely settled, even if that is only the settled doctrine that there are no settled doctrines. We have varied responses to discussing such doctrines. For a community, some sort of statement of beliefs and/or goals is necessary. Why is it that you choose to meet together at certain intervals? Why do you support one another? What goals do you have in organizing?
    When I was looking at congregations of the United Methodist Church for the first time I spoke to two different pastors. One told me that he and his congregation didn’t care what I believed. Just come be with them if I would enjoy the congregation. The other asked me about my spiritual walk at the time. Often churches try to follow the pattern of that first pastor in welcoming everyone irrespective of their beliefs. But there are also problems with this approach. In general, churches that have expectations of their members grow faster than those that don’t. It’s nice to be accepted, but one wants to be accepted into something.
    This same issue can arise when a church accepts people with limits. For example, does your church accept divorced people into membership? Will your church allow a divorced person to take a position of leadership? My purpose here is not to argue for or against whatever standards are involved, but rather to suggest that we examine our reason and be honest with those who come into the church.
    A person who joins a church congregation is likely to have a purpose in doing so. If that purpose cannot be fulfilled, or if such persons do not find a place where they can be useful and valued, they will likely move on or become apathetic. I do not have statistics, just personal conversations, but I suspect that many apathetic, uninvolved Christians lost their drive and energy because somebody thought they were not good enough to go beyond pew warming. We may not say it that way, but our behavior makes it clear that some people are just not good enough for our church.
    Some church members have discovered that their beliefs or their histories are considered less acceptable than that of other church members only when they have tried to move into new levels of ministry with that congregation. In one case (I’m intentionally not citing specific people or congregations here), a couple discovered that they were expected to sign a statement affirming opposition to same-sex marriage, but were only told about this after they were in the process of training for leadership. Nobody had said anything before. Membership was OK, and nobody had discussed same-sex marriage before that moment, nor had they heard it mentioned from the pulpit, but to step into leadership they had to sign a statement.
    Again, my purpose here is not to question the policies of that church, but rather to point out the difficulty that arises when our beliefs and the emotional vehemence with which we hold them sneak up on us. We need to think about what is really essential so that our emotions, and I think more importantly, our local culture (whether church or community) doesn’t have us unintentionally emphasizing things that we’re used to, but that we can’t defend as truly essential.
    I wrote a post for my personal blog about 10 years ago, and in it I used the following illustration, which I have redrawn for this post:
    church_member_types_essentialsWith just four church member types you can be confident that there is something stereotyped about these. I think I tend to have some sympathy for #2, for example, and I would deny allowing doctrine to trump service; doctrine can drive service, but shouldn’t trump it. But that is a danger.
    What I want to show with the diagram is that the more doctrines we make essential, the harder it is to work with one another. If everything is essential and certain, it’s very hard for us to accept others who may disagree. That’s the case of the fanatic, for whom all that is necessary is that he or she holds a belief for it to be critical. One who disagrees on anything more important than color preferences is immediately anathema.
    But there is also danger in #3. While I didn’t draw it, there are those who eliminate almost all doctrine from consideration, and then we lose both coherence and motivation. To be motivated to serve, one likely needs to believe, at a minimum, that service is desirable.
    In addition, one should be careful to ask “essential for what?” when discussing essential doctrines. I consider myself part of a Christian community that includes Calvinists. I have no objection to working with them, and I do believe I share a faith with them. I’m less likely to actually join a congregation that is Calvinist, especially if predestination is, or approaches, an essential for that congregation. That doesn’t mean we can’t run a soup kitchen together or do evangelism together.
    On the other hand, a small group within a church might unite on a longer list of doctrines than the church congregation as a whole. For example, a church might welcome both Calvinists and Arminians. But sometimes it’s nice to get together in a study in which you don’t have to defend everything, so such a church might have small groups defined by one position or the other.
    I’ve done all this to suggest an individual exercise. If you feel comfortable with it, write up the results in a comment, or post about it on your blog and post the link in a comment. I recommend writing the answers down and then thinking about them.
    Answer these questions:

    1. For what purpose are you defining essentials? [for example: determining what is “Christian”?, church congregation, small group, debate]
    2. For the defined group or purpose, what would you consider essential doctrines? These are the doctrines that would be a requirement for someone to join your group or participate in your activity.
    3. What are some specific non-essentials, things that you believe but don’t feel others must agree to?
    4. How strong are the boundaries? Are there any essentials that you might allow exceptions to? Are there any non-essentials that you might find difficult, even if you think they should be non-essential?
    5. Finally, ask yourself if you are satisfied with this list in connection with the gospel commission. Would you want other people to view you with reference to the same list? Remember that this is in reference to the group or activity you chose in #1.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2364′]
     

  • Politics as Usual?

    by Bob Cornwall

    PicI must admit that I’m a bit puzzled by the current political season? I may be a pastor, but I’ve always been interested in politics. I first got involved in politics as a ten-year-old. It was 1968. My parents were both active in the Republican Party. I got to spend time at the Republican headquarters and stood with the teenagers who lined the road when Richard Nixon came to town. We all wore sashes that declared “Nixon’s the One.” Four years later, as a fourteen-year-old, I went door-to-door for the party’s candidates. I was so interested in politics that I began to dream of a day when I could enter the political ring. I admit I was young and maybe naïve, but I believed that this was an honorable profession.
    I’m older now. I changed parties during seminary. I’m not quite as active in politics as I was as a fourteen-year-old, but despite everything I continue to believe that politics can be an honorable profession. At least I hope so. If not, then I fear for the country in which I have spent my life. There has always been a dark side to politics, but there was a time, or at least I thought there was, when people could sit down and work out their differences.
    As a Christian and as a religious leader I believe that people of faith can play a productive role in public life. But to do so, we need to recognize the importance of political pluralism. I have a responsibility to advocate for just laws. I have a responsibility to be a good citizen. I live in a democracy (a republican form), in which my vote has important implications. As I vote I should ask what my implications for the nation and the world that vote has.
    People like to complain about the state of our politics, but have we forgotten that those in positions of political leadership were put there by the citizens of this nation. Unfortunately, many citizens forgo their opportunity to cast a vote. Participation is extremely low. If Congress is dysfunctional or the courts seem unaccountable, could it be that we have been negligent in our voting patterns, especially in off-year elections?
    At the same time as some choose not to vote, others work to disenfranchise citizens. They make it difficult to vote due to limited polling places, inconvenient voting times, or placing barriers to getting registered. These burdens have hit those who poor and those whose ethnicity differs from the majority. I don’t think we should force people to vote, but I do think we need to take our citizenship seriously. If for no other reason, then out of concern for our neighbors, whomever they are and wherever they may live. That is, let us expand our neighborhoods to embrace the entirety of the community.
    I write this as a follower of Jesus who believes that my love for God can and should be expressed by my love for my neighbor. As this is the season of Lent and the journey takes us toward the cross, I’m ever mindful that Jesus was tortured and executed by the state. Jesus, I believe, identifies with the tortured and the executed. Thus, I should do the same.
    Like I said at the beginning, I’m puzzled by this political season. I hear lots of rhetoric that is rather unseemly. I hear candidates embrace torture and exclusion. Is this politics as usual? Am I naïve to believe that public service is honorable? I hope not! It is for this reason that I wrote the essays that form my book Faith in the Public Square, even as I continue to give to God my Ultimate Allegiance!
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.